Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core i5-10400F + AMD Radeon RX 9070

This combination pairs a 6-core, 12-thread Intel Comet Lake processor with AMD's RDNA 4.0 flagship GPU, producing a system that ranks 623rd out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a configuration that handles 1080p and 1440p comfortably, while 4K Ultra demands compromises.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combination ranks 623rd out of 1,795 total tested combos, placing it in the upper-middle tier of the database. This percentile position reflects a system that can deliver playable frame rates across most settings but is not at the very top of the performance hierarchy.

Q: What is the best 4K performance this combo achieves?

A: At 3840x2160, the highest average frame rate is 91.2 FPS on Low settings. The Ultra preset drops to 52.6 FPS, while High and Medium produce 50.9 FPS and 67.8 FPS respectively. This indicates 4K gaming is viable but requires settings adjustments for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Core i5-10400F posts an average benchmark score of 14,168, sitting 0.4% above the AMD EPYC 7552 (14,115) and 0.8% below the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14,277). It trails the Intel Core i5-8500 by 1.1% and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 by 1.2%.

Q: What is the GPU's synthetic benchmark standing relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The RX 9070 achieves an average score of 34,780, which is 0.2% below the NVIDIA A2 (34,866) and 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (34,677). It leads the AMD Radeon HD 7970 by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 by 0.8%.

Q: What frame rate can users expect at 1440p with Ultra settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with the Ultra preset, the combo delivers an average of 71.5 FPS. This is nearly identical to the 4K High result of 50.9 FPS, suggesting the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions rather than the CPU.

Q: Is the RX 9070's 16 GB VRAM sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator's demands?

A: The data indicates no VRAM-related bottlenecks across any tested resolution or settings combination, as frame rates scale predictably with resolution changes. The 16 GB GDDR6 memory with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth provides ample headroom for the game's texture streaming at all tested presets.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture using TSMC's 4 nm process, featuring 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die. Its boost clock reaches 2520 MHz with a game clock of 2070 MHz, while the 16 GB GDDR6 memory operates at an effective 20.1 Gbps across a 256-bit bus, yielding 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's 3,584 shading units and 128 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises. At 1080p, the frame rate gap between Low (134.3 FPS) and Ultra (84.8 FPS) is 49.5 FPS, showing the GPU can push high frame rates but settings still matter. At 1440p, the same settings spread yields 125.2 FPS versus 71.5 FPS. At 4K, the GPU's load intensifies: Low produces 91.2 FPS but Ultra drops to 52.6 FPS. The RX 9070's 16 GB VRAM and high bandwidth ensure texture streaming doesn't cause stutters, even at 4K Ultra where the game's scenery data demands significant memory throughput.

The GPU's synthetic scores reflect its mid-to-high tier positioning. Its Passmark G3D score of 25,381 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6,290 demonstrate strong DirectX 12 performance, which Microsoft Flight Simulator utilizes for its rendering pipeline. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 165,532 suggests efficient API overhead management, though the game's primary workload appears to scale well with the GPU's raw compute capabilities across all tested resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides 6 cores and 12 threads from its Comet Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz boosts to 4.30 GHz, with a shared 12 MB L3 cache and 256 KB L2 per core. The dual-channel DDR4 memory interface delivers 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth, which feeds the CPU's Passmark multithread score of 12,115 and single-thread score of 2,541.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles world simulation, physics, and AI traffic. The benchmark data shows the CPU's influence is most pronounced at lower resolutions where the GPU is not saturated. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 134.3 FPS, while at 1080p Ultra it drops to 84.8 FPS — a 49.5 FPS difference entirely attributable to GPU load. However, the CPU's 73rd percentile ranking among all processors and its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10,297 suggest it can feed the GPU adequately up to 1440p, as evidenced by the 1440p Low result of 125.2 FPS.

The processor's nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores provide context: it sits 0.4% above the EPYC 7552 and 0.8% below the Ryzen 3 7320C, indicating the 10400F is not a bottleneck in most scenarios. The 3DMark single-thread score of 688 and 2-thread score of 1,350 show modest single-core performance, which matters for flight simulators that often rely on primary thread execution for aircraft systems modeling. Yet the measured FPS data shows the CPU handles the game's demands without causing frame rate collapses at any tested setting.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 623 out of 1,795 tested configurations places it in the 65th percentile of all combinations. This positioning reflects a balanced pairing where neither component drastically underperforms relative to the other. The CPU's 73rd percentile ranking and GPU's 79th percentile ranking both contribute to this solid mid-upper tier placement.

Examining the data more closely, the combo's 4K Ultra result of 52.6 FPS is nearly identical to the 1440p Ultra result of 71.5 FPS when scaled for resolution — suggesting the system scales predictably and neither component creates a disproportionate bottleneck. The 1080p Low result of 134.3 FPS versus the 4K Low result of 91.2 FPS shows a 43.1 FPS drop when resolution quadruples, indicating the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions. This rank suggests users can expect consistent performance across a wide range of settings without encountering severe optimization issues.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce 134.3 FPS average, Medium reaches 123.4 FPS, High achieves 90 FPS, and Ultra drops to 84.8 FPS. The transition from Medium to High costs 33.4 FPS, while High to Ultra costs only 5.2 FPS — indicating the High preset hits a performance plateau where additional visual fidelity yields diminishing returns.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages shift downward: Low produces 125.2 FPS, Medium hits 94.7 FPS, High reaches 72 FPS, and Ultra delivers 71.5 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 0.5 FPS, suggesting that at 1440p the Ultra preset's additional effects are nearly free relative to High. The 1080p to 1440p resolution increase costs 9.1 FPS on Low (134.3 to 125.2) but 18 FPS on High (90 to 72), showing the GPU's workload scales more steeply at higher quality settings.

At 3840x2160, the combo produces 91.2 FPS on Low, 67.8 FPS on Medium, 50.9 FPS on High, and 52.6 FPS on Ultra. Interestingly, Ultra outperforms High by 1.7 FPS at 4K, which falls within measurement variance but indicates the settings are not strictly linear in performance impact. The 1080p to 4K drop is most severe on Medium (123.4 to 67.8, a 55.6 FPS loss) and least severe on Ultra (84.8 to 52.6, a 32.2 FPS loss), demonstrating that higher preset levels reduce the relative performance penalty of higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p displays, the High preset at 90 FPS provides the best balance of visual quality and smoothness. The Ultra preset's 84.8 FPS is only 5.2 FPS lower but offers marginal visual gains, making High the more efficient choice. Users prioritizing maximum frame rates can use Medium at 123.4 FPS or Low at 134.3 FPS for competitive or VR scenarios.

At 1440p, Ultra at 71.5 FPS is effectively free compared to High at 72 FPS, so the Ultra preset is the recommended choice for this resolution. The 0.5 FPS difference means users lose nothing by enabling the highest settings. Medium at 94.7 FPS provides a smoother experience for users sensitive to frame rate fluctuations, while Low at 125.2 FPS is available for maximum responsiveness.

For 4K, the Medium preset at 67.8 FPS offers the best experience, as it outperforms High (50.9 FPS) by 16.9 FPS and Ultra (52.6 FPS) by 15.2 FPS while still providing substantial visual detail. The Low preset at 91.2 FPS is the only 4K option that consistently exceeds 60 FPS, making it suitable for users who prioritize frame stability over visuals. High and Ultra at 4K should be avoided unless users accept frame rates in the low 50s, which may cause noticeable judder in a flight simulator's panning camera movements.